Woman who used disabled parking badge of dead person ordered to pay more than £1,000

Bournemouth Echo: FINED: A woman abused the Blue Badge scheme FINED: A woman abused the Blue Badge scheme

A WOMAN who used a disabled parking badge belonging to a dead person has been ordered to pay more than £1,000.

Sarah Ross, 45, who gave her address in court as Glenleven, Glenferness Avenue, pleaded guilty at Bournemouth Crown Court after she was caught using a blue badge for the disability parking scheme, which had been altered to show it was current, despite being expired.

The recipient of the original blue badge had passed away several years previously.

Ross’ actions have been branded “appalling” by a Dorset disability charity.

A member of the public reported the offence to a parking officer and there was a subsequent investigation by the Bournemouth Borough Council’s Corporate Fraud Team.

Ross was also ordered to pay a £500 fine, a contribution towards council costs of £500 and a £15 victim surcharge at the court hearing.

The level three offence can have a maximum fine of £1,000, but as a first offence Ross was fined half the maximum and ordered to pay nearly all council costs.

After the case, Nikki Haswell, who works for the advice service at Poole-based Diverse Abilities Plus, said: “It is appalling that motorists abuse the scheme.

“Despite the increased number of bays for those that have a disability, there are still not always car park spaces available.

“Therefore, when a person has used a badge illegally, those that have a genuine need for a disabled car park space are even less likely to be able to find a vacant bay which may mean a wasted trip, which is very frustrating and a waste of time and money.”

Cllr Anne Filer, cabinet member for corporate efficiency at the council, said: “To those people who attempt to use blue badges fraudulently, this conviction sends an important message – you will not get away with it.

“The vast majority of Bournemouth residents are honest and truthful in the way they claim and use blue badges.

“The public will be reassured that our professional team of officers will seek out and prosecute this minority of fraudsters.

“Over the coming months, the council will conduct more pro-active exercises around Bournemouth in order to identify further offenders and ensure the system not being abused.”

Ross told the Daily Echo: “I have been fined and prosecuted and that is the end of it. The matter is dealt with.”

Comments (19)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:08pm Thu 13 Feb 14

Bob49 says...

First offence ?

First conviction, more like

and why "ordered to pay nearly all council costs"

those costs were incurred solely on the basis of her actions she should have been charged full whack ................. and for the fine as well
First offence ? First conviction, more like and why "ordered to pay nearly all council costs" those costs were incurred solely on the basis of her actions she should have been charged full whack ................. and for the fine as well Bob49
  • Score: 24

12:29pm Thu 13 Feb 14

glendower2909 says...

Not advocating that we all use disabled badged when not entitled but does it really warrant a fine of £1000.

From todays Bournemouth "in the Dock"

1 - Assault by beating = £110 fine
2 - Threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour. Also admitted failing without reasonable excuse to surrender to custody = £165 fine
3 - Failing to provide a specimen of breath for analysis. = £290 fine
4 - Driving without insurance - £745 fine
5 - Fraud & theft = £270 fine
6 - Criminal damage - £691 fine

We need some sentencing consistency in the judiciary. Too much relies on how an individual judge feels on a given day.
Not advocating that we all use disabled badged when not entitled but does it really warrant a fine of £1000. From todays Bournemouth "in the Dock" 1 - Assault by beating = £110 fine 2 - Threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour. Also admitted failing without reasonable excuse to surrender to custody = £165 fine 3 - Failing to provide a specimen of breath for analysis. = £290 fine 4 - Driving without insurance - £745 fine 5 - Fraud & theft = £270 fine 6 - Criminal damage - £691 fine We need some sentencing consistency in the judiciary. Too much relies on how an individual judge feels on a given day. glendower2909
  • Score: 10

12:51pm Thu 13 Feb 14

Bob49 says...

"Too much relies on how an individual judge feels on a given day"

or more like the circumstances that are not given by a mere brief report in the Eecho

judges do have fairly strict sentencing guidelinesand I am not too sure whether an increase in the fines in most of the above would have had any deterent affect, whereas constant misuse of disabled parking spaces is far too common and far to easy and relies upon the trust of drivers to respect these spaces

not carry out premeditated fraud
"Too much relies on how an individual judge feels on a given day" or more like the circumstances that are not given by a mere brief report in the Eecho judges do have fairly strict sentencing guidelinesand I am not too sure whether an increase in the fines in most of the above would have had any deterent affect, whereas constant misuse of disabled parking spaces is far too common and far to easy and relies upon the trust of drivers to respect these spaces not carry out premeditated fraud Bob49
  • Score: 10

1:03pm Thu 13 Feb 14

glendower2909 says...

Bob49 wrote:
"Too much relies on how an individual judge feels on a given day" or more like the circumstances that are not given by a mere brief report in the Eecho judges do have fairly strict sentencing guidelinesand I am not too sure whether an increase in the fines in most of the above would have had any deterent affect, whereas constant misuse of disabled parking spaces is far too common and far to easy and relies upon the trust of drivers to respect these spaces not carry out premeditated fraud
Point missed I’m afraid.

Both of my parents in law have disabled badges so I am all in favour of policing their use/misuse however the fine must fit the crime.

Whatever the circumstances in anyone’s book I do not see how a "Physical assault by Beating" can warrant a £110 fine while parking wrongly in a disabled bay ( even if repeatedly over an extended period of time) = £1000
[quote][p][bold]Bob49[/bold] wrote: "Too much relies on how an individual judge feels on a given day" or more like the circumstances that are not given by a mere brief report in the Eecho judges do have fairly strict sentencing guidelinesand I am not too sure whether an increase in the fines in most of the above would have had any deterent affect, whereas constant misuse of disabled parking spaces is far too common and far to easy and relies upon the trust of drivers to respect these spaces not carry out premeditated fraud[/p][/quote]Point missed I’m afraid. Both of my parents in law have disabled badges so I am all in favour of policing their use/misuse however the fine must fit the crime. Whatever the circumstances in anyone’s book I do not see how a "Physical assault by Beating" can warrant a £110 fine while parking wrongly in a disabled bay ( even if repeatedly over an extended period of time) = £1000 glendower2909
  • Score: 2

1:19pm Thu 13 Feb 14

Access Dorset says...

Local authorities and the courts could learn from Castlepoint Shopping Park. If you park in an accessible parking bay without a valid Blue badge you get fined. A proportion of the revenue from fines goes towards enhancing accessibility for disabled people e.g. creating a Changing Places WC. Imaginative and restorative justice.
Local authorities and the courts could learn from Castlepoint Shopping Park. If you park in an accessible parking bay without a valid Blue badge you get fined. A proportion of the revenue from fines goes towards enhancing accessibility for disabled people e.g. creating a Changing Places WC. Imaginative and restorative justice. Access Dorset
  • Score: 6

1:28pm Thu 13 Feb 14

Bob49 says...

glendower2909 wrote:
Bob49 wrote:
"Too much relies on how an individual judge feels on a given day" or more like the circumstances that are not given by a mere brief report in the Eecho judges do have fairly strict sentencing guidelinesand I am not too sure whether an increase in the fines in most of the above would have had any deterent affect, whereas constant misuse of disabled parking spaces is far too common and far to easy and relies upon the trust of drivers to respect these spaces not carry out premeditated fraud
Point missed I’m afraid.

Both of my parents in law have disabled badges so I am all in favour of policing their use/misuse however the fine must fit the crime.

Whatever the circumstances in anyone’s book I do not see how a "Physical assault by Beating" can warrant a £110 fine while parking wrongly in a disabled bay ( even if repeatedly over an extended period of time) = £1000
err, no

you are confusing (deliberate or not) the actual fine imposed with the maximum fine

perhaps you could tell us what the maximum fine is for a case of beating - and also what the circumstances were in this particular case .......as the rest of us will only know what is printed here and do not have your further knowledge
[quote][p][bold]glendower2909[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bob49[/bold] wrote: "Too much relies on how an individual judge feels on a given day" or more like the circumstances that are not given by a mere brief report in the Eecho judges do have fairly strict sentencing guidelinesand I am not too sure whether an increase in the fines in most of the above would have had any deterent affect, whereas constant misuse of disabled parking spaces is far too common and far to easy and relies upon the trust of drivers to respect these spaces not carry out premeditated fraud[/p][/quote]Point missed I’m afraid. Both of my parents in law have disabled badges so I am all in favour of policing their use/misuse however the fine must fit the crime. Whatever the circumstances in anyone’s book I do not see how a "Physical assault by Beating" can warrant a £110 fine while parking wrongly in a disabled bay ( even if repeatedly over an extended period of time) = £1000[/p][/quote]err, no you are confusing (deliberate or not) the actual fine imposed with the maximum fine perhaps you could tell us what the maximum fine is for a case of beating - and also what the circumstances were in this particular case .......as the rest of us will only know what is printed here and do not have your further knowledge Bob49
  • Score: 5

2:04pm Thu 13 Feb 14

glendower2909 says...

"err, no"

Not confusing anything. Just re-stating the known facts as presented in the local rag.

Physical beating = A paltry fine - Approx. 10% of that imposed for parking illegally.

However this is spun with regards to maximum or minimum fines versus actual level imposed is academic. The net result is plainly wrong by any measure.
"err, no" Not confusing anything. Just re-stating the known facts as presented in the local rag. Physical beating = A paltry fine - Approx. 10% of that imposed for parking illegally. However this is spun with regards to maximum or minimum fines versus actual level imposed is academic. The net result is plainly wrong by any measure. glendower2909
  • Score: -1

2:06pm Thu 13 Feb 14

muscliffman says...

Access Dorset wrote:
Local authorities and the courts could learn from Castlepoint Shopping Park. If you park in an accessible parking bay without a valid Blue badge you get fined. A proportion of the revenue from fines goes towards enhancing accessibility for disabled people e.g. creating a Changing Places WC. Imaginative and restorative justice.
I am with your point, but on a detail Castlepoint cannot 'fine' people - they do not have the legal power to 'fine' anyone for anything!
[quote][p][bold]Access Dorset[/bold] wrote: Local authorities and the courts could learn from Castlepoint Shopping Park. If you park in an accessible parking bay without a valid Blue badge you get fined. A proportion of the revenue from fines goes towards enhancing accessibility for disabled people e.g. creating a Changing Places WC. Imaginative and restorative justice.[/p][/quote]I am with your point, but on a detail Castlepoint cannot 'fine' people - they do not have the legal power to 'fine' anyone for anything! muscliffman
  • Score: 3

3:26pm Thu 13 Feb 14

Bandit3 says...

Well done Bournemouth council for enforcing blatant abuse. This should now send out a message to those who abuse blue badges. Lets hope Poole council will follow your example
Well done Bournemouth council for enforcing blatant abuse. This should now send out a message to those who abuse blue badges. Lets hope Poole council will follow your example Bandit3
  • Score: 6

4:31pm Thu 13 Feb 14

Bob49 says...

glendower2909 wrote:
"err, no"

Not confusing anything. Just re-stating the known facts as presented in the local rag.

Physical beating = A paltry fine - Approx. 10% of that imposed for parking illegally.

However this is spun with regards to maximum or minimum fines versus actual level imposed is academic. The net result is plainly wrong by any measure.
oh dear

you are "stating the known facts as presented " you are speculating on something you admit you don't know, and misreptesentung (lying) about something you do know

the fine was not £1000, it was £500

you do not know what the circumstances were of the beating was

you have not stated what the maximum fines is in that crime

neither have you addressed the fact of their ability to pay

i can only hope for your sake that you never have to face a jury that contains members with your limited grasp of reasoning - or a judge with a similar lack of sentencing knowledge
[quote][p][bold]glendower2909[/bold] wrote: "err, no" Not confusing anything. Just re-stating the known facts as presented in the local rag. Physical beating = A paltry fine - Approx. 10% of that imposed for parking illegally. However this is spun with regards to maximum or minimum fines versus actual level imposed is academic. The net result is plainly wrong by any measure.[/p][/quote]oh dear you are "stating the known facts as presented " you are speculating on something you admit you don't know, and misreptesentung (lying) about something you do know the fine was not £1000, it was £500 you do not know what the circumstances were of the beating was you have not stated what the maximum fines is in that crime neither have you addressed the fact of their ability to pay i can only hope for your sake that you never have to face a jury that contains members with your limited grasp of reasoning - or a judge with a similar lack of sentencing knowledge Bob49
  • Score: 0

5:56pm Thu 13 Feb 14

billm says...

The only conclusion I can come to is that the judge takes into account whatever knowledge he has of the guilty party when deciding on the amount of the fine. There would seem to be little point in imposing a big fine on someone who was not going to be in a position to pay eg a person of 'no fixed abode'.
The only conclusion I can come to is that the judge takes into account whatever knowledge he has of the guilty party when deciding on the amount of the fine. There would seem to be little point in imposing a big fine on someone who was not going to be in a position to pay eg a person of 'no fixed abode'. billm
  • Score: 2

7:23pm Thu 13 Feb 14

glendower2909 says...

Bob49 wrote:
glendower2909 wrote:
"err, no"

Not confusing anything. Just re-stating the known facts as presented in the local rag.

Physical beating = A paltry fine - Approx. 10% of that imposed for parking illegally.

However this is spun with regards to maximum or minimum fines versus actual level imposed is academic. The net result is plainly wrong by any measure.
oh dear

you are "stating the known facts as presented " you are speculating on something you admit you don't know, and misreptesentung (lying) about something you do know

the fine was not £1000, it was £500

you do not know what the circumstances were of the beating was

you have not stated what the maximum fines is in that crime

neither have you addressed the fact of their ability to pay

i can only hope for your sake that you never have to face a jury that contains members with your limited grasp of reasoning - or a judge with a similar lack of sentencing knowledge
Pedantic.

Sorry for not being totally specific but I will make amends

Parking illegally = £500 fine + £500 compensation +£15 surcharge = £1015
Phsyical beating = community service, victim surcharge £60 & costs £50 = £110 ie exactly what I said.

Now if stupidity was a valid disability you would have your own badge....

Njoy XX

Pity stupidity is n I#doe snot make you eligible for abadge
[quote][p][bold]Bob49[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]glendower2909[/bold] wrote: "err, no" Not confusing anything. Just re-stating the known facts as presented in the local rag. Physical beating = A paltry fine - Approx. 10% of that imposed for parking illegally. However this is spun with regards to maximum or minimum fines versus actual level imposed is academic. The net result is plainly wrong by any measure.[/p][/quote]oh dear you are "stating the known facts as presented " you are speculating on something you admit you don't know, and misreptesentung (lying) about something you do know the fine was not £1000, it was £500 you do not know what the circumstances were of the beating was you have not stated what the maximum fines is in that crime neither have you addressed the fact of their ability to pay i can only hope for your sake that you never have to face a jury that contains members with your limited grasp of reasoning - or a judge with a similar lack of sentencing knowledge[/p][/quote]Pedantic. Sorry for not being totally specific but I will make amends Parking illegally = £500 fine + £500 compensation +£15 surcharge = £1015 Phsyical beating = community service, victim surcharge £60 & costs £50 = £110 ie exactly what I said. Now if stupidity was a valid disability you would have your own badge.... Njoy XX Pity stupidity is n I#doe snot make you eligible for abadge glendower2909
  • Score: -1

7:26pm Thu 13 Feb 14

scrumpyjack says...

Bob49 wrote:
"Too much relies on how an individual judge feels on a given day"

or more like the circumstances that are not given by a mere brief report in the Eecho

judges do have fairly strict sentencing guidelinesand I am not too sure whether an increase in the fines in most of the above would have had any deterent affect, whereas constant misuse of disabled parking spaces is far too common and far to easy and relies upon the trust of drivers to respect these spaces

not carry out premeditated fraud
Quite right and well said.
[quote][p][bold]Bob49[/bold] wrote: "Too much relies on how an individual judge feels on a given day" or more like the circumstances that are not given by a mere brief report in the Eecho judges do have fairly strict sentencing guidelinesand I am not too sure whether an increase in the fines in most of the above would have had any deterent affect, whereas constant misuse of disabled parking spaces is far too common and far to easy and relies upon the trust of drivers to respect these spaces not carry out premeditated fraud[/p][/quote]Quite right and well said. scrumpyjack
  • Score: 1

7:26pm Thu 13 Feb 14

scrumpyjack says...

Bob49 wrote:
"Too much relies on how an individual judge feels on a given day"

or more like the circumstances that are not given by a mere brief report in the Eecho

judges do have fairly strict sentencing guidelinesand I am not too sure whether an increase in the fines in most of the above would have had any deterent affect, whereas constant misuse of disabled parking spaces is far too common and far to easy and relies upon the trust of drivers to respect these spaces

not carry out premeditated fraud
Quite right and well said.
[quote][p][bold]Bob49[/bold] wrote: "Too much relies on how an individual judge feels on a given day" or more like the circumstances that are not given by a mere brief report in the Eecho judges do have fairly strict sentencing guidelinesand I am not too sure whether an increase in the fines in most of the above would have had any deterent affect, whereas constant misuse of disabled parking spaces is far too common and far to easy and relies upon the trust of drivers to respect these spaces not carry out premeditated fraud[/p][/quote]Quite right and well said. scrumpyjack
  • Score: 0

11:38pm Thu 13 Feb 14

Alf.r52 says...

muscliffman wrote:
Access Dorset wrote:
Local authorities and the courts could learn from Castlepoint Shopping Park. If you park in an accessible parking bay without a valid Blue badge you get fined. A proportion of the revenue from fines goes towards enhancing accessibility for disabled people e.g. creating a Changing Places WC. Imaginative and restorative justice.
I am with your point, but on a detail Castlepoint cannot 'fine' people - they do not have the legal power to 'fine' anyone for anything!
Muscliff man -Wrong. The shopping centre is private property and really can do so. The parking company they employ never lose a case in court so I am told . So be careful and be warned!
[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Access Dorset[/bold] wrote: Local authorities and the courts could learn from Castlepoint Shopping Park. If you park in an accessible parking bay without a valid Blue badge you get fined. A proportion of the revenue from fines goes towards enhancing accessibility for disabled people e.g. creating a Changing Places WC. Imaginative and restorative justice.[/p][/quote]I am with your point, but on a detail Castlepoint cannot 'fine' people - they do not have the legal power to 'fine' anyone for anything![/p][/quote]Muscliff man -Wrong. The shopping centre is private property and really can do so. The parking company they employ never lose a case in court so I am told . So be careful and be warned! Alf.r52
  • Score: -2

2:41am Fri 14 Feb 14

muscliffman says...

Alf.r52 wrote:
muscliffman wrote:
Access Dorset wrote:
Local authorities and the courts could learn from Castlepoint Shopping Park. If you park in an accessible parking bay without a valid Blue badge you get fined. A proportion of the revenue from fines goes towards enhancing accessibility for disabled people e.g. creating a Changing Places WC. Imaginative and restorative justice.
I am with your point, but on a detail Castlepoint cannot 'fine' people - they do not have the legal power to 'fine' anyone for anything!
Muscliff man -Wrong. The shopping centre is private property and really can do so. The parking company they employ never lose a case in court so I am told . So be careful and be warned!
No I don't believe I am wrong, although perhaps I am being just a bit picky with the detail!

Private land owners or car park management Company's cannot legally 'fine' people (as defined in Law), they can only 'demand' a civil penalty payment which can be subsequently disputed by either party in a Court of Law - who could then impose a legal 'fine' and/or payment of the penalty.

And these private parking outfits do occasionally loose Court cases. E.G. Latimer Road in Winton 2010 comes to mind when several private penalty notices were overruled. However I agree with your warning to be careful as they do usually win in Court.
[quote][p][bold]Alf.r52[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Access Dorset[/bold] wrote: Local authorities and the courts could learn from Castlepoint Shopping Park. If you park in an accessible parking bay without a valid Blue badge you get fined. A proportion of the revenue from fines goes towards enhancing accessibility for disabled people e.g. creating a Changing Places WC. Imaginative and restorative justice.[/p][/quote]I am with your point, but on a detail Castlepoint cannot 'fine' people - they do not have the legal power to 'fine' anyone for anything![/p][/quote]Muscliff man -Wrong. The shopping centre is private property and really can do so. The parking company they employ never lose a case in court so I am told . So be careful and be warned![/p][/quote]No I don't believe I am wrong, although perhaps I am being just a bit picky with the detail! Private land owners or car park management Company's cannot legally 'fine' people (as defined in Law), they can only 'demand' a civil penalty payment which can be subsequently disputed by either party in a Court of Law - who could then impose a legal 'fine' and/or payment of the penalty. And these private parking outfits do occasionally loose Court cases. E.G. Latimer Road in Winton 2010 comes to mind when several private penalty notices were overruled. However I agree with your warning to be careful as they do usually win in Court. muscliffman
  • Score: 0

7:23am Fri 14 Feb 14

BIGTONE says...

“The public will be reassured that our professional team of officers will seek out and prosecute this minority of fraudsters.


How many have they prosecuted so far?
“The public will be reassured that our professional team of officers will seek out and prosecute this minority of fraudsters. How many have they prosecuted so far? BIGTONE
  • Score: 1

10:26am Fri 14 Feb 14

rozmister says...

glendower2909 wrote:
Bob49 wrote:
glendower2909 wrote: "err, no" Not confusing anything. Just re-stating the known facts as presented in the local rag. Physical beating = A paltry fine - Approx. 10% of that imposed for parking illegally. However this is spun with regards to maximum or minimum fines versus actual level imposed is academic. The net result is plainly wrong by any measure.
oh dear you are "stating the known facts as presented " you are speculating on something you admit you don't know, and misreptesentung (lying) about something you do know the fine was not £1000, it was £500 you do not know what the circumstances were of the beating was you have not stated what the maximum fines is in that crime neither have you addressed the fact of their ability to pay i can only hope for your sake that you never have to face a jury that contains members with your limited grasp of reasoning - or a judge with a similar lack of sentencing knowledge
Pedantic. Sorry for not being totally specific but I will make amends Parking illegally = £500 fine + £500 compensation +£15 surcharge = £1015 Phsyical beating = community service, victim surcharge £60 & costs £50 = £110 ie exactly what I said. Now if stupidity was a valid disability you would have your own badge.... Njoy XX Pity stupidity is n I#doe snot make you eligible for abadge
Because forcing someone to give up their free time to pay back the community is a stronger punishment than paying money out of their pocket?
It's not always about the cost in monetary value to the individual it's about making them pay back through whatever means possible and making them feel punished.

Personally I'd much prefer to pay off a fine (which I'd be able to afford) and spend my weekends in bed rather than pay a smaller fine and have to pay back the community in my spare time. That's a moot point though because the closest I've got a crime was accidentally not scanning my milk in Tesco the other day!
[quote][p][bold]glendower2909[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bob49[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]glendower2909[/bold] wrote: "err, no" Not confusing anything. Just re-stating the known facts as presented in the local rag. Physical beating = A paltry fine - Approx. 10% of that imposed for parking illegally. However this is spun with regards to maximum or minimum fines versus actual level imposed is academic. The net result is plainly wrong by any measure.[/p][/quote]oh dear you are "stating the known facts as presented " you are speculating on something you admit you don't know, and misreptesentung (lying) about something you do know the fine was not £1000, it was £500 you do not know what the circumstances were of the beating was you have not stated what the maximum fines is in that crime neither have you addressed the fact of their ability to pay i can only hope for your sake that you never have to face a jury that contains members with your limited grasp of reasoning - or a judge with a similar lack of sentencing knowledge[/p][/quote]Pedantic. Sorry for not being totally specific but I will make amends Parking illegally = £500 fine + £500 compensation +£15 surcharge = £1015 Phsyical beating = community service, victim surcharge £60 & costs £50 = £110 ie exactly what I said. Now if stupidity was a valid disability you would have your own badge.... Njoy XX Pity stupidity is n I#doe snot make you eligible for abadge[/p][/quote]Because forcing someone to give up their free time to pay back the community is a stronger punishment than paying money out of their pocket? It's not always about the cost in monetary value to the individual it's about making them pay back through whatever means possible and making them feel punished. Personally I'd much prefer to pay off a fine (which I'd be able to afford) and spend my weekends in bed rather than pay a smaller fine and have to pay back the community in my spare time. That's a moot point though because the closest I've got a crime was accidentally not scanning my milk in Tesco the other day! rozmister
  • Score: 1

11:27am Sat 15 Feb 14

Teecee1309 says...

glendower2909 wrote:
Not advocating that we all use disabled badged when not entitled but does it really warrant a fine of £1000.

From todays Bournemouth "in the Dock"

1 - Assault by beating = £110 fine
2 - Threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour. Also admitted failing without reasonable excuse to surrender to custody = £165 fine
3 - Failing to provide a specimen of breath for analysis. = £290 fine
4 - Driving without insurance - £745 fine
5 - Fraud & theft = £270 fine
6 - Criminal damage - £691 fine

We need some sentencing consistency in the judiciary. Too much relies on how an individual judge feels on a given day.
£1000.00 fine is NOT enough for these selfish, selfish people, Too many people get away with this selfish act too often !
[quote][p][bold]glendower2909[/bold] wrote: Not advocating that we all use disabled badged when not entitled but does it really warrant a fine of £1000. From todays Bournemouth "in the Dock" 1 - Assault by beating = £110 fine 2 - Threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour. Also admitted failing without reasonable excuse to surrender to custody = £165 fine 3 - Failing to provide a specimen of breath for analysis. = £290 fine 4 - Driving without insurance - £745 fine 5 - Fraud & theft = £270 fine 6 - Criminal damage - £691 fine We need some sentencing consistency in the judiciary. Too much relies on how an individual judge feels on a given day.[/p][/quote]£1000.00 fine is NOT enough for these selfish, selfish people, Too many people get away with this selfish act too often ! Teecee1309
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree